U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 05-31-2010, 09:00 PM
 
165 posts, read 625,856 times
Reputation: 121

Advertisements

I heard they are about to open a new freeway somewhere on 99 just outside of Yuba City towards Sacramento that would connect to a major freeway that's going to San Francisco. I'm not quite sure if this information is correct but does anyone know if there will be a new freeway and if so where to and where exactly it will be? Also when will it be ready?
thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2010, 01:11 AM
 
Location: Bryte, CA
1,963 posts, read 2,833,551 times
Reputation: 1321
CA-99 will be widened to a 4-lane highway.

Safety & Improvement on Sutter 99 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/projects/Sut99/index.htm - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 09:29 PM
 
Location: San Diego (Unv Heights)
756 posts, read 1,554,666 times
Reputation: 527
Other than the 99 adding a couple of extra lanes, the Sacramento region is pretty anti-freeway and many of the freeways we do have are falling apart.
Normally, I would be okay with not building additional freeways. However, since the region's code for existence has been massive urban sprawl the past twenty years or so, I question why the infrastructure to deal with the sprawl has not been better implemented.
Either repair, expand, or create additional freeways or develop a sophisticated mass transit system.
None of which have been done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Bryte, CA
1,963 posts, read 2,833,551 times
Reputation: 1321
That is because the same suburbanites who don't want public transit also don't want freeways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 09:59 PM
 
7,585 posts, read 8,478,384 times
Reputation: 3108
They want freeways, it's paying for freeways that bothers them. I think many assume that the term "free" in freeways means it shouldn't cost anything.

Adding more lanes isn't really a help, though--wider freeways just facilitate more sprawl, which clogs up the new lanes even more quickly. It's kind of like deciding you're going to go on a diet, and instead of eating less food you just buy a bigger belt.

The region's code for existence has been massive urban sprawl for the past 60 years. We are reaching the practical physical limits for sprawl--at some point, we're either going to have to start building public transit and rebuilding the suburbs in a manner that allows public transit to work. Maybe we can get back something we had 100 years ago--electric trains between Sacramento and Marysville/Yuba City, and streetcars in both cities!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 11:56 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,473 posts, read 16,319,342 times
Reputation: 5314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The region's code for existence has been massive urban sprawl for the past 60 years. We are reaching the practical physical limits for sprawl--at some point, we're either going to have to start building public transit and rebuilding the suburbs in a manner that allows public transit to work. Maybe we can get back something we had 100 years ago--electric trains between Sacramento and Marysville/Yuba City, and streetcars in both cities!
Nah, we have plenty of room for more sprawl. As stated in previous threads, we have a ton of room south of Rt 50, from Rancho Murietta west towards Grant Line and Calvine Rds. I'll bet that area could easily add half million folks.

Also, the area west of Lincoln/Roseville heading towards the north side of the airport could easily handle another half million, so I'd say we could easity go another million in the local vicinity. Rt 99 towards Yuba City would be part of this north east side expansion.

Public transit could be part of the equation, along with an enhanced surface road system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2010, 01:47 AM
 
7,585 posts, read 8,478,384 times
Reputation: 3108
The question is, do we have plenty of money to continue subsidizing sprawl?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2010, 02:21 AM
 
Location: Bryte, CA
1,963 posts, read 2,833,551 times
Reputation: 1321
Well, don't expect a thing to change in the next ten years because we are, at the very least, that far into an economic hole. I think CA-65 will be upgraded to a freeway where it connects with CA-70, and CA-99 will be upgraded to a combination of 4-lane highway and freeway north to Chico. That is about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2010, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,473 posts, read 16,319,342 times
Reputation: 5314
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC6ZLV View Post
Well, don't expect a thing to change in the next ten years because we are, at the very least, that far into an economic hole. I think CA-65 will be upgraded to a freeway where it connects with CA-70, and CA-99 will be upgraded to a combination of 4-lane highway and freeway north to Chico. That is about it.
I don't know if it will take at least 10 years, but I generally agree with your comment, but I would add that on the south side of the metro area I think Grant Line Rd between Folsom and Elk Grove will also be widened and have more limited access.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2010, 01:11 AM
 
7,585 posts, read 8,478,384 times
Reputation: 3108
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Nah, we have plenty of room for more sprawl. As stated in previous threads, we have a ton of room south of Rt 50, from Rancho Murietta west towards Grant Line and Calvine Rds. I'll bet that area could easily add half million folks.
The other problem with sprawl is that as long as we have room to expand horizontally, and subsidies to fund that expansion, we will never expand vertically. It's just easier to follow the valley outward than to build public transit or higher-density neighborhoods, even though in the long run it costs more and the city suffers for it. Instead of building skyscrapers, we'll just build more "landscrapers"--malls, power centers, suburban business parks--and car-centric suburbs.

In other posts you have commented about how Sacramento's central city seems "undeveloped" to you, compared to cities in Ohio, which were built out for the most part before the advent of the automobile. Those freeways, and the suburban expansion that inevitably follows them, are precisely why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top